Due to the provisions in the USA PATRIOT act, the FBI could issue National Security Letters (NSLs) that would require the recipients to not be allowed to share any information about the letters or other related subjects. While the law attempted to use these letters as formal requests that the information shares clear and present danger to the United States and its War of Terrorism by using prior restraint. However when internet service provider called "Jone Doe" the provider sued the federal government. Due to the nature of the NSL, the case was confidential, until the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the case and sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While the decision of the District course was still pending, congress modified the NSL clauses that lessened their power in the PATRIOT act, however the changed tightened the hold of gag provisions that would require complete confidentiality. After this change, an appeal back to the District court is sent to revise the case upon the new laws. As the ACLU challenges the new laws constitutionality, the District court ruled that the law violates the protections of the First Amendment, and abolished the entire NSL provisions.[1]
Connecticut Librarians against the PATRIOT act
In the search under the USA PATRIOT act, the FBI has sent requests for records of those participating at a public library to check for suspicious behavior. Similar to the case of Doe v. Gonzales ACLU grouped the cased together in the same trial, and appealed to the Supreme Court. However their appeal to the Supreme Court was quickly shot down by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stating that although the claims made by the union were accurate, the Courts needed more time to investigate the still new USA PATRIOT act and its constitutionality before it can hear such a case.[2] However in the 2nd Court of Appeals in New York, US District Court Judge Janet Hall ruled for the ACLU that the gag provisions set upon the Connecticut Librarians squelched their right to discuss public policies which violated the Constitution. While the ruling still prevented the Librarians to share specific information that was subject to originally silenced by the FBI, it is a sign that the PATRIOT act may be under strict rulings that might qualify and restrict the provisions the USA PATRIOT act currently.[3]
Doe v. Gonzales
Due to the provisions in the USA PATRIOT act, the FBI could issue National Security Letters (NSLs) that would require the recipients to not be allowed to share any information about the letters or other related subjects. While the law attempted to use these letters as formal requests that the information shares clear and present danger to the United States and its War of Terrorism by using prior restraint. However when internet service provider called "Jone Doe" the provider sued the federal government. Due to the nature of the NSL, the case was confidential, until the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the case and sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While the decision of the District course was still pending, congress modified the NSL clauses that lessened their power in the PATRIOT act, however the changed tightened the hold of gag provisions that would require complete confidentiality. After this change, an appeal back to the District court is sent to revise the case upon the new laws. As the ACLU challenges the new laws constitutionality, the District court ruled that the law violates the protections of the First Amendment, and abolished the entire NSL provisions.[1]Connecticut Librarians against the PATRIOT act
In the search under the USA PATRIOT act, the FBI has sent requests for records of those participating at a public library to check for suspicious behavior. Similar to the case of Doe v. Gonzales ACLU grouped the cased together in the same trial, and appealed to the Supreme Court. However their appeal to the Supreme Court was quickly shot down by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stating that although the claims made by the union were accurate, the Courts needed more time to investigate the still new USA PATRIOT act and its constitutionality before it can hear such a case.[2] However in the 2nd Court of Appeals in New York, US District Court Judge Janet Hall ruled for the ACLU that the gag provisions set upon the Connecticut Librarians squelched their right to discuss public policies which violated the Constitution. While the ruling still prevented the Librarians to share specific information that was subject to originally silenced by the FBI, it is a sign that the PATRIOT act may be under strict rulings that might qualify and restrict the provisions the USA PATRIOT act currently.[3]